Adding a type for VoiD description documents?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Some vocabularies define a class for documents that mainly use the vocabulary. 
For example, FOAF 
has foaf:PersonalProfileDocument. Shall we add something similar to void, e.g. 
void:DatasetDescription? This would be a subclass of foaf:Document.

Benefit: It might encourage people to add metadata to their voiD files, e.g.

<> a void:DatasetDescription;
    foaf:primaryTopic :MyDataset;
    dc:modified "2009-02-15"^^xsd:date;
    .

Original issue reported on code.google.com by richard....@gmail.com on 16 Feb 2009 at 12:16

[GoogleCodeExporter]

would it encourage adding metadata significantly more than some examples 
showing this
with foaf:Document rather than a custom voiD one?

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 19 Feb 2009 at 8:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 24 May 2009 at 11:46

• Added labels: Milestone-Release2.0

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Re comment #1: If I compare the two options

   <> a foaf:Document
   <> a void:DatasetDescription

then I find that the second one gives a much clearer idea about what to expect 
inside the file.

voiD is basically two things: (i) a vocabulary, and (ii) a “document 
profile” that shows how to combine different 
vocabularies into a coherent description of a particular kind of thing. I think 
it's a good idea to have a class to 
indicate that the document was written to conform to that particular document 
profile.

But it's not a huge deal, so If there's opposition to a new class then I'm 
prepared to relent.

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 10 Aug 2009 at 5:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Not opposed (on the contrary), but would like to be clear about the benefits - 
is
this pattern useful/successful/important in the foaf world? How? Do any other
mainstream vocabs do this? SIOC ?

Are there existing scenarios where a user has to sift through lots of 
foaf:Documents
to find a particular sub type (void:DatasetDescription ones)? Would the usage 
of this
class make it easier to find voiD descriptions in, say, sindice ?

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2009 at 3:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The benefit I perceive is not in finding voiD descriptions, but in 
understanding what kind of document you have. 
If I open an RDF document and see it's of type void:DatasetDescription, then I 
know what I'm looking at. By 
analogy, think of the "W3C Recommendation" badge on the left hand side of W3C 
documents -- it's not useful 
for search, but it's useful metadata/documentation for knowing what you are 
looking at.

There aren't that many vocabularies that explain how to create an entire, 
self-contained document.  SIOC uses 
foaf:Document. GoodRelations uses owl:Ontology (ugh!).

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 27 Aug 2009 at 5:57

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I like the proposal from Richard.

Original comment by jun.zhao...@googlemail.com on 27 Aug 2009 at 6:07

[GoogleCodeExporter]

fine by me

Original comment by K.J.W.Al...@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2009 at 9:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

From today's call: we'll add the class. Proposed RDFS:

void:DatasetDescription a rdfs:Class;
    rdfs:subClassOf foaf:Document;
    rdfs:label "Dataset description";
    rdfs:comment "A document containing voiD descriptions of one or more datasets. The datasets described in 
the document should be specified using foaf:primaryTopic (if there is only one 
main dataset), or foaf:topic (if 
several datasets are described).";
    .

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2009 at 9:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 4 Sep 2009 at 9:47

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Added some text to Section 4.1 to explain this, and added a few statements to 
the example in 1.1

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 16 Sep 2009 at 10:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by richard....@gmail.com on 8 Oct 2009 at 11:25

• Changed state: Fixed

[GoogleCodeExporter]

approved.

Original comment by junVi...@gmail.com on 13 Oct 2009 at 10:01